The question is how unfair is it. I would suggest that the past 30 years of like 3 different teams winning titles says it all.

In MLB and the NFL in any given year, 2-6 of the punchingbag teams will manage to put together playoff runs and have a shot. None of those teams can sustain success, but they get a shot at it every few years.

In the NBA, 1-2 punchingbag teams each decade have a 2-3 year window to compete. And the NBA has more punchingbag teams than any other of the big 3.

Affalo is a quality young starting SG, the other guys are young pieces and they got three firsts while dropping J-Rich's contract.

This is in no way some absurd/huge haul (out of all of these deals the Jazz still probably pulled the best one because they dealt the guy before any demands were made, with New Orleans having done okay if Gordon ever gets healthy), but it is WAY better for an organization than paying Brook Fucking Lopez max money.

I guess I am mis-remembering, but wasn't the initial Nets offer BEFORE Lopez signed his max deal? Also, I think the picks involved at the time were unprotected.

Bottom line for me - the Brooklyn deal would have meant more flexibility in the future. Now, the Magic need to play the hand they're dealt (no expiring contracts.) The talent is improved, but it's also in Orlando for awhile. And I don't see much of a way to quickly build around it.

No, Lopez signing a max extension was a contingency for the deal to go through and that contract is right now one of the top two most ridiculous in the entire league. that deal was a poo-poo platter.

That is the opposite of flexibility, it was death and I'm going to enjoy laughing at Brooklyn for paying it for the next five years.

The question is how unfair is it. I would suggest that the past 30 years of like 3 different teams winning titles says it all.

In MLB and the NFL in any given year, 2-6 of the punchingbag teams will manage to put together playoff runs and have a shot. None of those teams can sustain success, but they get a shot at it every few years.

In the NBA, 1-2 punchingbag teams each decade have a 2-3 year window to compete. And the NBA has more punchingbag teams than any other of the big 3.

That is the biggest bullshit argument ever.

You have very few champions in the NBA because very few players are good enough to win the championship. If a mid-market gets there shot they better not blow it.

There is no way to make a league in which you need one of any six players to win a title fair. It's impossible.

The Knicks can be fucking stupid and have Amare and Melo on their roster. Stupid for years and fuck-nuts like those two whose talent exceeds their brains go there.

The mid-market teams need to be fucking perfect. It's next to impossible unless you get once in generation talents AND PEOPLE like Durant and Duncan.

Frankly, if I am a mid-market team I'd rather keep drafting high and hoping for a player that can actually win a title like Durant and Duncan opposed to having a piece of shit cancer like Melo. Just sayin'

I also can guarantee you that guys like Wade, LBJ and Rose would have stayed in a mid-market if the team was built right. Guys who care about winning more than anything tend to flock to winning. I don't think being in Miami had a damned thing to do with the Big 3, it had to do with Pat Riley far more.

The irony is that the Cavs in the past two years and this upcoming year will have had the opportunity to draft themselves into a pretty darn good team. But two things have happened. 1) They have out-thought themselves and not drafted well (time will tell on Waiters)2) The draft has been thin.

It's funny, we gripe about how thin the draft is because we can't get a good player with the 4th pick in the draft two years in a row. If you look back in the 70s and 80s they had 10-20 ROUNDS in the draft. Ugh. Can you imagine the crap they were drafting in that era?

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

e0y2e3 wrote:On the plus side they took such ridiculous "Boom or Bust Athletes That Aren't Basketball Players" they'll keep drafting in the top three if they both bust.

Then at some point, eye, you got to bust into the Cavs war room on draft day, tie them all to their chairs and run their freaking draft yourself, then untie them, leave, then let them take the credit for it.

They have been so freaking random with their picks. Maybe Mrs TMLP simply likes the color orange???

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

Affalo is a quality young starting SG, the other guys are young pieces and they got three firsts while dropping J-Rich's contract.

This is in no way some absurd/huge haul (out of all of these deals the Jazz still probably pulled the best one because they dealt the guy before any demands were made, with New Orleans having done okay if Gordon ever gets healthy), but it is WAY better for an organization than paying Brook Fucking Lopez max money.

I guess I am mis-remembering, but wasn't the initial Nets offer BEFORE Lopez signed his max deal? Also, I think the picks involved at the time were unprotected.

Bottom line for me - the Brooklyn deal would have meant more flexibility in the future. Now, the Magic need to play the hand they're dealt (no expiring contracts.) The talent is improved, but it's also in Orlando for awhile. And I don't see much of a way to quickly build around it.

No, Lopez signing a max extension was a contingency for the deal to go through and that contract is right now one of the top two most ridiculous in the entire league. that deal was a poo-poo platter.

That is the opposite of flexibility, it was death and I'm going to enjoy laughing at Brooklyn for paying it for the next five years.

Ok - I stand corrected.

BTW, you are defending your position well, even if the entire forum is fighting against you.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:BTW, you are defending your position well, even if the entire forum is fighting against you.

Hey, eye might need a personality implant or an anger management class or two, but the dude knows the NBA better than anyone on this forum (no offense to anyone else intended)... and the Cavs FO for that matter.

Edit: I get ticked off when there is something going on in the NBA and I come into this forum to see what's going on and eye has commented on it yet.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

And listen, I don't give a fuck if it's a six team league. Just make it one for real and quit cocking around.

Oh.... and if it were a 6-team league and the Cavs players were entered in a dispersal draft, they'd have one fucking player picked. And he'd probably be a backup PG.

Here's what they should do:

Reduce league to 8 teams. New York, Boston, Brooklyn, Miami, Chicago, LA Lakers, Dallas, and Houston. 2 conferences of 4 teams each, NY, Boston, Miami, Brooklyn in the East and LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston in the West.

All other teams are reduced to ashes and all the players are subject to an NBA fantasy draft.

Only the Top 2 teams in each conference get into the playoffs, so it gives the regular season some meaning (finally). Top 2 teams in each conference play in 7 game Conference Championship series, then comes the NBA Finals.

Nothing left in the league but stars, so the ability of stars to leave small market teams to go play with their star buddies in large markets no longer exists because there are no small markets and there are no teams without stars.

There, fixed.

Houston isn't chic enough, swap in the Clippers.

"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor

e0y2e3 wrote:Kingpin, the Magic could have traded the best center in the league for the second best center in the league, draft picks and cap space had they wanted to. That is a better trade than anything that has pretty much ever happened in the entirety of the MLB and/or the NFL.

I know, but they were hogtied by the fact that Bynum wouldn't stay. I guess my point is that in baseball, you can legitimately rebuild based on a couple of good 1-2 year rental trades. If you hit on a good baseball trade like the Indians did with Colon way back, you get a couple of real stars (maybe even better ones than the guy you traded) that are under your control for 6-7 years at reasonable salaries. It's not the NBA's fault that real "prospects" don't exist in their sport and that the best teams never have game-changing draft picks, but that's just how it is. So with the young stars dictating which cities they would play in, the market shrinks and the offers get worse (and the only trade assets those teams tend to have are just OK anyway).

Last edited by Kingpin74 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.

"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor

The Knicks can be fucking stupid and have Amare and Melo on their roster. Stupid for years and fuck-nuts like those two whose talent exceeds their brains go there.

The mid-market teams need to be fucking perfect. It's next to impossible unless you get once in generation talents AND PEOPLE like Durant and Duncan.

Frankly, if I am a mid-market team I'd rather keep drafting high and hoping for a player that can actually win a title like Durant and Duncan opposed to having a piece of shit cancer like Melo. Just sayin'

I also can guarantee you that guys like Wade, LBJ and Rose would have stayed in a mid-market if the team was built right. Guys who care about winning more than anything tend to flock to winning. I don't think being in Miami had a damned thing to do with the Big 3, it had to do with Pat Riley far more.

Maybe so on the Riley thing. It certainly didn't hurt.

Now, tell me why Riley went there and we'll make even more headway. Miami was right in his wheelhouse because it's Miami as well as because of the potential he saw in that club.

I maintain that if LeBron's biggest concern was winning - both in the short and long term - he would've gone to Chicago, not Miami.

Miami was about teaming up with his friend first, winning second. He figured that they would still be good enough to win b/c they're both just so super-dooper. And he was right. But whatever team he went to - Miami, Chicago, New York - would've had a good shot at a ring if he went there.

e0y2e3 wrote:Kingpin, the Magic could have traded the best center in the league for the second best center in the league, draft picks and cap space had they wanted to. That is a better trade than anything that has pretty much ever happened in the entirety of the MLB and/or the NFL.

I know, but they were hogtied by the fact that Bynum wouldn't stay. I guess my point is that in baseball, you can legitimately rebuild based on a couple of good 1-2 year rental trades. If you hit on a good baseball trade like the Indians did with Colon way back, you get a couple of real stars (maybe even better ones than the guy you traded) that are under your control for 6-7 years at reasonable salaries. It's not the NBA's fault that real "prospects" don't exist in their sport and that the best teams never have game-changing draft picks, but that's just how it is. So with the young stars dictating which cities they would play in, the market shrinks and the offers get worse (and the only trade assets those teams tend to have are just OK anyway).

The hit rate on MLB prospects traded has become abysmal. Teams have mastered hyping up their own shitty prospects and dumping them while promoting and protecting the guys they really like. Trades from a decade ago like the Colon deal are deader than dead.

And seriously, the Magic could have traded the best for the second best, cap space and three draft picks. Rolling the dice on getting one of two hugely impactful 7 footers in the NBA >>>>> a solid but not great young SG and a few young guys that are just rotation players.

The question is how unfair is it. I would suggest that the past 30 years of like 3 different teams winning titles says it all.

In MLB and the NFL in any given year, 2-6 of the punchingbag teams will manage to put together playoff runs and have a shot. None of those teams can sustain success, but they get a shot at it every few years.

In the NBA, 1-2 punchingbag teams each decade have a 2-3 year window to compete. And the NBA has more punchingbag teams than any other of the big 3.

That is the biggest bullshit argument ever.

You have very few champions in the NBA because very few players are good enough to win the championship. If a mid-market gets there shot they better not blow it.

There is no way to make a league in which you need one of any six players to win a title fair. It's impossible.

Which part was bullshit?

Nowhere did I say that the NBA could fix the problem. Nowhere did I say anything that contradicts your (correct) point about the structural problem inherent to professional basketball.

All I said was that the NBA is less fair than the other sports. That is objective fact.

You're the one who suggested a reason for that unfairness, and I happen to agree with you.

And it's because of that unfairness that the NBA isn't something I'm interested in watching.

Not really, I very much prefer a league where the best players win year in and year out as of opposed to a league where watered down rules and single game elimination mean whichever of the top six QBs gets hot in the playoffs wins a title without having shit around them.

And the general sport of basketball when combined with seven game series means you typically get the best team winning as opposed to the hottest team (baseball) or the hottest QB (NFL).

Those are the best parts about the NBA, true. And I think it's great that people enjoy that.

But for me, the best part of sports is the tradition and joy of cheering on the same team as my father and his father and so on. The best part of sports for me is the team tradition and loyalty and all that sappy stuff.

Now, in a league where most teams cannot reasonably compete with any kind of frequency, that's a big, big problem for me and what I like about sports. Because I need to know that all teams, if run the same, have the same chance to win, or as close to even as possible.

And I agree with you that the rise of the franchise QB in the NFL is really bad. The league will be the same as the NBA in a few years where you have to have that superstar or you're done. If it's not there already. That's bad and I hope that the game continues to evolve such that the QB isn't the entire team anymore.

All three leagues have structural problems right now. I only follow MLB because baseball is my favorite sport and I just can't stop myself. I think the structural unfairness there is about as bad as in the NBA, although in MLB, at least one team can get hot at the right time and win. It's some consolation for knowing that all the players who helped you get there will be gone next year after you win that WS. I would rather the league just be fair and then the best team always won, but between the best team always winning and having more than 4 teams having a realistic chance to win, I'll take the more than 4 teams being able to win.

Sure the NBA finals are great basketball. Probably better quality for their sport than any other final. But the cost of that is that we know going into the season which two teams will be playing in the final. We know. The regular season in the NBA is less important and suspenseful than Major League Bowling. I'd rather have 4 months of meaningful football or 5 months of meaningful baseball than 2 weeks of meaningful basketball.

e0y2e3 wrote:Not really, I very much prefer a league where the best players win year in and year out as of opposed to a league where watered down rules and single game elimination mean whichever of the top six QBs gets hot in the playoffs wins a title without having shit around them.

And the general sport of basketball when combined with seven game series means you typically get the best team winning as opposed to the hottest team (baseball) or the hottest QB (NFL).

I guess that's the crux, because I HATE it when the best team usually wins.

Fucking garbage. Boring. Why bother watching?

There's a reason that the NFL playoffs and the NCAA tournament are the most popular sporting events, and it's precisely for the reason that you dislike. Single game elimination is far more compelling than a series.

I guess I am able to segregate things. The NBA has the best playoffs, bar none (outside of the NHL) in the world. Watching the best athletes in existence in ANY series/ANY round is fun. The 2011 first round featured a bunch of up and coming teams losing that are incredible forces now and was the best first round I have ever seen in sports.

That said, next year I will get more enjoyment out of watching the Timberwolves fight every week than I will the playoffs. I know the Wolves cannot win the title and I know they can't do shit in the playoffs, but watching that interesting and scraggely team play 82 will be incredible fun. On the days they are off I'll watch shit teams that are fun and young like the Bucks. Hell, I've watched Golden State play more over the last three years than any team.

I'll also watch the Cavs no and then to watch Kyrie be Kyrie.

Then the playoffs start and what I am watching shifts from wanting to watch what is the most fun to wanting to see the best team win. That is why I cheered hard for Boston this year, watching those old fucks execute at a high level was amazing, especially after Bradley's injury.

The NBA, unlike any other sport, is a tale of two seasons that ends up telling a novel of a tale every time.

I don't give two fucks about some white 5'10" cunt from Vandy shooting lights out for one game and upsetting a team that would have beat them 99/100 games. Same for The Seahawks beating the Aints two years ago. That sucks to me as a title making tourney.

e0y2e3 wrote:I guess I am able to segregate things. The NBA has the best playoffs, bar none (outside of the NHL) in the world. Watching the best athletes in existence in ANY series/ANY round is fun. The 2011 first round featured a bunch of up and coming teams losing that are incredible forces now and was the best first round I have ever seen in sports.

That said, next year I will get more enjoyment out of watching the Timberwolves fight every week than I will the playoffs. I know the Wolves cannot win the title and I know they can't do shit in the playoffs, but watching that interesting and scraggely team play 82 will be incredible fun. On the days they are off I'll watch shit teams that are fun and young like the Bucks. Hell, I've watched Golden State play more over the last three years than any team.

I'll also watch the Cavs no and then to watch Kyrie be Kyrie.

Then the playoffs start and what I am watching shifts from wanting to watch what is the most fun to wanting to see the best team win. That is why I cheered hard for Boston this year, watching those old fucks execute at a high level was amazing, especially after Bradley's injury.

The NBA, unlike any other sport, is a tale of two seasons that ends up telling a novel of a tale every time.

I don't give two fucks about some white 5'10" cunt from Vandy shooting lights out for one game and upsetting a team that would have beat them 99/100 games. Same for The Seahawks beating the Aints two years ago. That sucks to me as a title making tourney.

To each his own.

And that sounds great for someone who knows the sport, can appreciate the very fine details of it and who isn't attached to a hometown team.

But for the rest of us, those of us who have a mental disorder that forces us to root for the North Coast, the inherent unfairness of the game, regardless why that unfairness is there, makes all those things you point out a lot less meaningful.

I will say, I watch tennis the way you watch Basketball and get where you're coming from. I love watching Federer play. Greatest player of all time. But it really does take a huge level of understanding for the game to get beyond the level of "Oh my God, why do the American players all suck!?"

The loyalty thing and the appreciation of the game are two separate things, and the NBA does one well and the other awfully. The NFL is the opposite.

You cannot call a game unfair when the Cavs had the best player of this generation and blew building around him in about 2,000 ways.

The Cavs had their chance and fucked it up in ways that are hard to imagine. The deserve every onze of suck they get, yet their reward for blowing it with LBJ is Kyrie, who is going to end up one of the five most entertaining and likeable kids in the league quickly.

e0y2e3 wrote:You cannot call a game unfair when the Cavs had the best player of this generation and blew building around him in about 2,000 ways.

The Cavs had their chance and fucked it up in ways that are hard to imagine. The deserve every onze of suck they get, yet their reward for blowing it with LBJ is Kyrie, who is going to end up one of the five most entertaining and likeable kids in the league quickly.

I mean, that's not just fair, it is flat charitable.

Trying to figure out how it is possible I agree 100% with ^, but still disagree that the league isn't set up for a handful of teams to win every title from now until forever.

It absolutely is, again, small markets have to draft their shots and not blow them, whereas the big markets get unlimited strikes. Still hasn't stopped the Knicks and Clippers from decades of suck though....

It could be worse, you could be a Blazers fan and have had to go from a Roy/Batum/Oden/Aldridge core to a complete rebuild thanks to bad knees.

e0y2e3 wrote:It absolutely is, again, small markets have to draft their shots and not blow them, whereas the big markets get unlimited strikes. Still hasn't stopped the Knicks and Clippers from decades of suck though....

It could be worse, you could be a Blazers fan and have had to go from a Roy/Batum/Oden/Aldridge core to a complete rebuild thanks to bad knees.

Would that really be worse? I can understand and deal with fate getting in the way. I cannot understand how anyone sees it as a good thing that 2 of the 3 major sports in this country are set up offering competitive advantages simply based on your location.

Even when we talk Cavs. Which we completely agree is on them. It took the 2nd greatest individual player in my lifetime to even give them a shot. Sure, they blew it. But what are the chances they even get a second shot at it? And that, as a sports fan, is disappointing.

There are 3 teams in Cleveland. All have been mismanaged (IMO) since the turn of the century. But I only get the feeling one of them absolutely has no chance at winning a title. How can that be healthy for a sport? I cannot imagine I am the only one that feels that way, and this is not the only city that has people that feel that way.

Yes, in the case of basketball such imbalance is usually the fault of the players, not the structure. Simple fact is in basketball the individual player is paramount. Ez'er for guys to flock together when it only takes 2, now 3 legit sooperstars to make u a finals contender.

End result is the same as baseball, but not as boring or unrewarding as football. IOW, fuck sports.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

OK. Is there anything the NBA can do to make it more competitive (understanding that they have no reason to). And if they can't/won't, why should anyone not living in one of those 4-6 cities even give a shit?

Uhm, in the last decade San Antonio, OKC and Cleveland have had legit title aspirations. Denver and Orlando have thought they had them (even though they didn't because their stars were fatally flawed as well as their rosters). Portland has been assfucked by injuries out of having a legit contender. New Orleans has had the best record in the league (even if with smoke and mirrors), and now Minny has Rubio and Love together. Phoenix very probably wins a title if they stay on the bench and don't lose two of their stars for game 7... etc.

It's all cyclical. If the smaller markets build teams correctly and get these guys sidekicks they love they'll stay (fuck, even Amare wanted to stay in Phoenix but Sarver wouldn't pay him because he is uninsurable).

BTW: something else to keep in mind during all of this, NEVER before in the history of the league have you had every single big market team (save the Lakers) sacrifice complete seasons for multiple years just to clear their entire cap so they could chase a FA (LBJ).

People that like to talk like this is the norm are just crazy, never again will all of these teams have the flexibility to move and shake like they are right now (for proof of this see the history of the Knicks, Clippers and Nets).

motherscratcher wrote:OK. Is there anything the NBA can do to make it more competitive (understanding that they have no reason to).

Can they extend the time it takes to become an unrestricted free agent? Make the restricted FA period longer?Remember how everyone gasped when LBJ didn't sign a max-length deal after his first contract? And then it kind of became vogue. Like we all shouldn't have seen it coming when that happened. I just hate it that it becomes a players-making-their-own-AAU-team league after the players become UFAs.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

e0y2e3 wrote:Uhm, in the last decade San Antonio, OKC and Cleveland have had legit title aspirations.

I think it's unfair to say CLE had a chance the year they went to the Finals and then fucked everything up after that. They had the same chance afterward that they had when they went and you can make a case they improved even if they didn't advance. That Finals team simply wasn't as good as the teams a year or two after.

It fits your argument to make that assertion but I don't believe it's true.

And if you're going to say they had legit title aspirations in '07 and they were as good or better in the years afterward then you can't say they let themselves get significantly worse and screwed their chances with LBJ.

He wanted to go. He was always going to go. I would prefer to play in Miami with my boys over Cleveland with Mo Williams too. But that's the point. This is not and will never be a preferred destination for young, affluent, elite athletes. So you better be dead nuts perfect in your drafts because you are NOT supplementing your roster with premier, in their prime free agents here.

Ever.

Not ever, never, nunca. Neither is Utah or Milwaukee, etc. , et al. The playing field is NOT ever going to be level unless the league does something drastic to make it so.

You can point to OKC and SanAn all day. They exist and the point is valid but those teams are the exception because of their stars' personalities. There is no one in the game more 180* opposite of NYC than Duncan.

Contract teams. That's fine. To go on like this and pretend everyone has an equal chance is league generated bullshit and it's pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

In 2009 the league was weak enough and LBJ playing well enough they were a legit title contender. I could give two shits about their run in 2007.

And yes I can say that they screwed their chances up with LBJ, same way Orlando did with Dewey. A patch-work title contending team is nice for fans and all but is a shit sandwhich in terms of what you are offering to an in his prime star.

I don't even get what you are arguing here (yet again) as my point was simply that over the last ten years plenty of small market fans have had plenty to cheer for.

I don't get any of what you are arguing, I've never said FAs are going anywhere and made the point very clear that small market teams have to draft well.

e0y2e3 wrote:In 2009 the league was weak enough and LBJ playing well enough they were a legit title contender. I could give two shits about their run in 2007.

And yes I can say that they screwed their chances up with LBJ, same way Orlando did with Dewey. A patch-work title contending team is nice for fans and all but is a shit sandwhich in terms of what you are offering to an in his prime star.

I don't even get what you are arguing here (yet again) as my point was simply that over the last ten years plenty of small market fans have had plenty to cheer for.

I don't get any of what you are arguing, I've never said FAs are going anywhere and made the point very clear that small market teams have to draft well.

The small market teams must draft well. And some of the others not quite as well - which gives the impression of unfairness.

Look, I understand your points. It's not the structure of the NBA which is making things so. But things outside the structure can make it unfair as well.

Just like hot chicks hardly have to do anything and ones with warts on their noses gotta pound the pavement. Fair....unfair...all a matter of degree - but it's the way it is.

Cleveland does not have as easy of a time winning as other franchises. That's not an outlandish statement, nor is it a fuck the NBA statement. And to your point, they may have a better chance than Cleveland teams in other professional sports.

Personally, two things in regard to the NBA; 1. I only watch the good teams anyway, (with the occasional look-in on an up and comer) so 6, 8, or 10 good teams doesn't matter to me. and 2. The Cavs are about as big a GD joke of an organization as their been in the history of sports. Not exagerration, FACT. Not sure if anywhere in the world helps them, and if it did, they'd screw up the help anyway.

So, you've gotta guy who forced his way out of dodge. And we ALL knew he was gonna go to one of four teams. Now I'm not sure with the cap and all how many total teams coulda even signed him, but the bottom line is only a few teams had a chance to get him - either through trade OR free agency. And that's not fair - just like the other professional sports. Dollars make things unfair. Today, tomorrow, always and everywhere.

I know this isn't the right spot for the Olympic 2012 "dream team" discussion but I don't know where else to put it.

Does yesterday's game do anything to properly shut up those that say the 2012 dream team is better than the original dream team??

I know the rest of the world is better now and that Spain had some legit NBA players on their roster. That said, there is no way in hell that the Gasol's and Ibaka get those kind of points against the original dream teams bigs - -Ewing, Malone, etc..

Though I never thought the US was in any kind of real trouble yesterday I think they would have been if it weren't for Durant's performance. Guy was awesome. Loved how the dumnb ass announcers were saying he was having an off-game in the first half when he already had 17 points with about 6 minutes to go in Q2.

Interesting game to watch. Loved how Spain did all of the little things to stay in the game and played smart. You knew their shooting couldn't hold up and that it was a matter of time but they did a good job of exploiting the US in the paint on offense.

YahooFanChicago wrote:I know this isn't the right spot for the Olympic 2012 "dream team" discussion but I don't know where else to put it.

Does yesterday's game do anything to properly shut up those that say the 2012 dream team is better than the original dream team??

I know the rest of the world is better now and that Spain had some legit NBA players on their roster. That said, there is no way in hell that the Gasol's and Ibaka get those kind of points against the original dream teams bigs - -Ewing, Malone, etc..

Though I never thought the US was in any kind of real trouble yesterday I think they would have been if it weren't for Durant's performance. Guy was awesome. Loved how the dumnb ass announcers were saying he was having an off-game in the first half when he already had 17 points with about 6 minutes to go in Q2.

Interesting game to watch. Loved how Spain did all of the little things to stay in the game and played smart. You knew their shooting couldn't hold up and that it was a matter of time but they did a good job of exploiting the US in the paint on offense.

This says most of what I take from the argument:

Scott Van Pelt ‏@notthefakeSVPDream team has a legacy; it's safe. The impact of 92 is seen 20 years later in the challenges USA faces from kids who watched everywhere

e0y2e3 wrote:No arguments, my only point is that as rare as it is, the fat dude sometimes lands that really hot chick.

I still don't understand what would be wrong with making the Bird rights money actually mean something, i.e. each team getting to designate one franchise player (not binding like the NFL, just for financial purposes) and pay him $10MM per year more than the regular max and the difference doesn't count against the cap or something like that. An eight figure difference might actually make these guys think twice before leaving.

It's drastic but I think it's the only way to give small markets a fighting chance and it doesn't hurt the players at all because it's a chance to get a lot more money and they still don't have to accept it if they don't want to. Sure, homegrown stars from big market teams would then have 0% chance to ever leave but in this day and age, that probably wasn't happening anyway. And an extra $10 mill would be a big financial strain on teams, but ask the Cavs what they'd choose between their current state or getting LeBron back minus an extra $10 mill a year.

"Well then I guess there's only one thing left to do...win the whole, f***in', thing."- Jake Taylor

Making the Bird Rights money huge is the best idea I've heard (it's far more likely to work than that bullshit FRANCHISE TAG@#%!!! shit people clammer for) and if a Dan Gilbert isn't willing to pay LeBron James $50,000,000 a year he doesn't deserve to have him.

That said, you'll still have instances where a guy runs away from a shit organization just to make sure he doesn't KG himself.

^ and ^^. It was what was said by many at the beginning of the whole lockout. Course, I was rational/irrational during the thing and prolly took both sides at different points. However, a meaningful Bird Rights always made the most sense. Not 80% of the difference being in the "extra" year. Perhaps only an already declining star would look at that and stay put.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."